affiliate_tune_get_earnings_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the return type includes oldestUnpaidAgeDays and describes the summary nature, implying no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or any limitations such as pagination or data retention, leaving important behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful example plus complementary tool guidance. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the tool is moderately complex. The description only partially covers parameters and provides minimal context on return structure. It does not explain pagination (cursor/limit), date filters (maxAgeDays/minAgeDays), or expected input formats, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely references date window (to/from), programme (programmeId), and status, but does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or their relationships. Most parameters remain semantically opaque despite the description's general hints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: summarising earnings on TUNE over a date window with breakdowns by program and transaction status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions and other networks' get_earnings_summary. The verb 'summarise' and the resource 'earnings on TUNE' are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', with a concrete example. It also names list_transactions as a complement for drilling into records, which serves as an alternative. However, there is no explicit when-not or exclusion, so it does not fully meet the 5-level criterion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.